[Wikipedia-l] policy suggestion: SAMPA

[Tom Parmenter]

|From: tarquin <tarquin at planetunreal.com>
|Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 17:03:19 +0100
|
|I can't determine accurately how to say "CHOP-ek.".
|Did the writer mean "CHOP" like the word "chop"? Or does it rhyme with 
|"SHOW"? Or did they in fact *mean* "SHOW", since "CH" is soft in many 
|languages?

Actually, it's pronounced "Throatwarbler-Mangrove".

I wrote: "For English speakers, the name is pronounced something like
CHOP-ek."  That seems modest and accurate (I discussed Capek with a
Czech at some length once and he knew who I was talking about.)

|And for that matter, how does the writer pronounce the word "chop"? 
|AmEng and BrEng have different vowels for that word.

I surrender (and actually anticipated and made this argument more
concisely in my original note), but this strikes me as disingenuous.
The intimidating SAMPA table gives examples like { "as in London
English cat".  Would that be Cockney or BBC?  I don't speak
either. The best system for me would be to render it in Spanish,
Norwegian, or German, phonetic languages that I know how to
pronounce. (smiley)

[rest snipped]

|
|Tom Parmenter wrote:
|
|>This list seems to have a bias in favor of leaping into snake pits:
|>tables, math formulas, SAMPA.  Next, musical notation?  
|>
|I don't think this is the same over-complexity as tables and maths 
|formulae (may) prove to be. It's a common sense standardization, using 
|an internationally-accepted system. 
|

I first heard of it day before yesterday.  As Donald Knuth says, "The
great thing about standards is that there are so many of them."

Any kind of markup drives away writers, so the less the better.  I
grant you that SAMPA is a lesser case, but the big SAMPA page is
too complex and scary and the little SAMPA page doesn't cover enough.  

In the end, I'm agreeable to all you say, but reluctantly so.  I think
I'll leave CHOP-ek in.  

Tom P.